Gouiran, Matter of

• Decision Date: 08 October 1992
• Citation: 130 N.J. 96,613 A.2d 479
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: In the Matter of Emile E. GOUIRAN, an Attorney at Law.

Page 96

130 N.J. 96

613 A.2d 479

In the Matter of Emile E. GOUIRAN, an Attorney at Law.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 8, 1992.

Disciplinary Review Board recommended that attorney's license be revoked for failure to respond fully to questions on bar application. The Supreme Court held that failure to disclose disciplinary proceedings in connection with real estate broker's license justifies revocation of license and, in light of lapse of time, stay of revocation in order to permit reapplication.

So ordered.

Thomas J. McCormick appeared on behalf of the District VIII Ethics committee.

Edward N. Fitzpatrick appeared on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court recommending that the license to practice law of EMILE E. GOUIRAN of PARIS, FRANCE, be revoked for knowingly failing to respond fully to questions on the application for It is ORDERED that the license of EMILE E. GOUIRAN to practice law is hereby revoked and respondent's name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys; and it is further

admission to the bar of this State, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 1-101(A), and further recommending that the revocation of respondent's license to practice be stayed for a period of six months in order to permit respondent to reapply for admission to the bar, and good cause appearing;

ORDERED that the revocation of respondent's license is stayed until the further Order of this Court in order to permit respondent to apply to the Committee on Character to be certified for admission to the bar of this State, provided that respondent makes such application within forty-five days after the date of this Order.

APPENDIX

Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

This matter was before the Board on a recommendation for public discipline filed by the District VIII Ethics Committee. The complaint charged respondent with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation and with deliberate failure to disclose material facts in connection with his application for admission to the New Jersey bar.

Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1984. He maintained a law office in Iselin, New Jersey. Although he also passed the New York bar examination, he was denied a license to practice law in that state by its Committee on Character and Fitness. In June 1988, respondent took up permanent residence in France.

In or about 1969, prior to becoming a lawyer, respondent obtained a real estate broker's license in New York. Thereafter 1. Department of State v. Emile E. Gouiran, d/b/a Richmond Realty Services, which resulted in a determination of untrustworthiness on January 30, 1976, with a penalty of a one- month suspension or a $200 fine. Respondent elected to pay the fine.

he was the subject of three separate disciplinary proceedings in New York related to that license:

2. Department of State v. National Richmond Realty Services, Inc., Emile E. Gouiran, Representative Broker, which resulted in a conclusion of untrustworthiness and the revocation of respondent's real estate broker's license on March 11, 1980.

3. Department of State v. National Richmond Realty Services, Inc., Emile E. Gouiran, et. al., which resulted in a finding of untrustworthiness and the revocation of the license, if the March 11, 1980 revocation did not survive an appeal ¹.

In December 1983, respondent applied for admission to the New Jersey bar. In connection therewith he filled out and submitted to the Committee on Character a form designated Certified Statement of Candidate, which contained the following language:

Important Instructions to Candidate: This statement is intended to provide the Committee on Character with information relevant to your fitness to practice law. Candor and truthfulness are significant elements of such fitness. You should, therefore, provide the Committee with all available information, however unfavorable, even if its relevance is in doubt. Disclosure must be as detailed as possible. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE REQUESTED INFORMATION WILL RESULT IN CERTIFICATION BEING WITHHELD.

[Exhibit C-2]

Question X of that form inquired about the candidate's involvement in legal proceedings. Part A asked as follows: "Have you, in your individual capacity, ever been a party to or had or claimed any interest in any civil proceeding?" Respondent answered "no," followed by the explanation, "But have been co-defendant in shotgun corporate actions--all settled.... See below for example. Various [plaintiffs] allways [sic] seem to throw officers in for good measure. Never went to trial on Was partner with one M. Costes in Gouiran Real Estate Company, Inc. He wanted to liquidate [and] split. I refused feeling market not right. He sued alleging everything [and] matter was settled by my purchase of certain corporate assets and giving him cash and by turning over balance of buildings to his RE broker for liquidation. Have heard nothing since 4/77 date settled. Copy of settlement agreement attached.*

                any though."   Part C inquired:  "Have you or has any business controlled or managed by you ever been charged with fraud, larceny, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, misrepresentation or similar offenses [including conspiracy to conceal, etc.] in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, or in bankruptcy?"   Respondent replied "yes."   Part D, in turn, provided:  "If you have answered yes to A, B, or C, state the nature of the proceeding and give full details, including dates, case numbers, name and location of court, if any, references to court records, facts and disposition."  (original emphasis).  Respondent answered as follows
                

In addition, respondent replied "no" to question XII, Part D, asking whether he had ever been "disbarred, suspended from practice, reprimanded, censured, removed or otherwise disciplined as an attorney or as a member of any other profession or public office" or whether "any complaints or charges, formal or informal, [had] ever been made or filed or proceedings instituted against [him] in such capacity." Lastly, respondent certified that his answers were true and accurate.

At the DEC hearing, respondent gave the following explanation for his failure to disclose the disciplinary proceedings concerning his broker's license:

I have to sort of bring out the mental state or the state of mind that I was in, when I was completing this application. I was still in law school. I had just finished a battery of exams, and honestly I looked through the application like any law student would, questions, it's a test, and I went through it question by question, detail by detail in an analytical and critical way, and I note on the copy here that I underlined the word individual, you know, in seeking out what are the issues, and I confined myself to narrow responses. I can tell, even

though I understand that in light of the instruction that this was wrong, or at least it was an error of judgment, you know, I looked at it and a brokerage proceeding for a violation of the regulations were [sic] not civil proceedings, I didn't claim an interest in it, and I think I just made an error to that extent. I just confined myself to the very very precise language of the question, and I answered and disclosed what I believed the question dealt with, which is civil litigation, I said there was [sic] lots of them, in shotgun approaches to litigation. But I've never--I didn't fail to disclose anything that I believed; and had I believed at the time of the accident [sic] that the question called for that disclosure, I would have disclosed it.

[T48-49] ²

Asked why he had not revealed the disciplinary proceedings when he answered Question X, Parts C & D, respondent replied:

I took the position at the time and I remember distinctly my state of mind at the time, that the questions had to be answered accurately and narrowly and properly, and I read the question, and I saw fraud, larceny, embezzlement, misappropriation of funds dealing with civil, criminal or bankruptcy proceedings, and I have never been accused of these kind [sic] of things. The Department of State proceedings were not civil lawsuits, they were not criminal lawsuits, they were not bankruptcy things. In addition to which they dealt with violating a rule, and untrustworthiness is not a word that is there, and it's a word that seems to be mandated to the hearing officer in order to justify any kind of reprimand.

[T50]

As to his failure to answer Question XII, Part D, in a candid fashion, respondent testified:

A. Well, once again, taking the entire scope of the thing, and the light within which I was operating, I really--I read the question and I see on the copy that was provided my underlining, which is the way I've taken tests since the beginning. I underline the key issues, and deal with those, and I'd never been an attorney, I was never a professional, I never held a public office and then I think that trying, of course, to go back ten years, and trying to rationalize the thinking, I do understand that it was wrong, it was an error in judgment, but I am trying to now figure it out. I see I underlined 'in such capacity,' and if that is not restrictive language from the perspective of a law student and not from the perspective of an attorney that's been in practice for 10 years, but here I saw a question that tells me have I been an attorney,

have I been a professional, have I held a public office, and then it limits itself to in such capacity, and that's the best answer I can tell you why I answered no, at the time.

[T51-52]

Respondent contended that he had answered that question in good faith, under the reasonable interpretation that the phrase "any other profession" did not encompass the occupation of a real estate broker. In fact, he added, because he was unsure of whether real estate brokers...